§ The result
Factorial leads Fetcher by 9 points.
Under rubric v1.0, Factorial, filed under ATS-integrated, finishes on 46 and Fetcher, filed under Sourcing, on 37, 9 points apart. Factorial leads 6 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while Fetcher leads 1, including Bias Audit Transparency. Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Factorial 52, Fetcher 27 — and at a 20% weight it carries 53% of the weighted advantage Factorial holds across the 6 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Factorial
Factorial is a Barcelona-based all-in-one HR, finance and IT platform for small and mid-sized businesses. Its applicant tracking system has optional AI matching, which shows a percentage fit for applicants it recommends interviewing, plus CV summaries, AI-written job posts and AI Calls, where a voice agent phone-screens candidates and gives each a match label that can move them to the next stage automatically.
Vendor profile
Fetcher
AI-powered candidate sourcing and outbound recruiting platform that automates passive and active talent sourcing, personalized email outreach, and inbound applicant screening for corporate recruiting teams.
§ The record
Factorial is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Fetcher under Candidate sourcing AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773.
| Record | Factorial | Fetcher |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Low | Mid |
| Headquarters | ES | US |
| Founded | 2016 | 2014 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 50% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Factorial 52 · Fetcher 27
5.0 weighted points to Factorial
12% weight · 65% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Factorial 48 · Fetcher 35
1.6 weighted points to Factorial
15% weight · 80% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Factorial 35 · Fetcher 25
1.5 weighted points to Factorial
12% weight · 88% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Factorial 58 · Fetcher 52
0.7 weighted points to Factorial
18% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Factorial 25 · Fetcher 28
0.5 weighted points to Fetcher
8% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Factorial 60 · Fetcher 55
0.4 weighted points to Factorial
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Factorial 57 · Fetcher 55
0.3 weighted points to Factorial
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +8.9 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 10.0 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +9 beside that +8.9.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Factorial minus Fetcher.
| Category | Weight | Factorial | Fetcher | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 27 | +25 | +5.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 25 | 28 | -3 | -0.5 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 25 | +10 | +1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 55 | +2 | +0.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 52 | +6 | +0.7 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 48 | 35 | +13 | +1.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 55 | +5 | +0.4 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 37 (F) | +9 | +8.9 |
§ Evidence
Cited sources and documented absences, criterion by criterion.
An absence is a finding, not a blank: the reviewer looked for a named artefact and recorded that it is not located. Where a source sits is a fact about hosting only.
| Criterion | Weight | Factorial | Fetcher | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | — |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 27 | 7 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 13 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Factorial has 34 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 27 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; Fetcher has 19 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 13 with a source URL, 6 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 53 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 34 for Factorial, across 3 distinct source domains, and 19 for Fetcher, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Factorial last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Fetcher last reviewed
- July 17, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
HireAIScore scores are editorial research, not legal advice, and no vendor pays for placement, scoring or removal — see the methodology, conflicts policy and terms.
§ Where next